PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLITO LINSANGAN Y DIAZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Linsangan

The Case

This is People versus Linsangan, a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court in April 1991. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Carlito Linsangan y Diaz for selling marijuana, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how a buy-bust operation is proved in court, it explains why the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty favors police officers, and it draws a precise line around the right against self-incrimination during custodial investigation. The accused initialed the marked money while in police custody without a lawyer, and the Court had to decide whether that act tainted his conviction.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by information with selling prohibited drugs before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch Forty-Nine. On arraignment, assisted by counsel de parte, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with all accessory penalties, and ordered him to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos, with the marijuana sticks confiscated in favor of the government. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising errors on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, on who actually handed over the marijuana, on the alleged planting of the marked money, and on the violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

Facts

In early November 1987, police operatives of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Police Station Number Three, Western Police District, received reports that drug using and pushing was rampant on Dinalupihan Street in Tondo, Manila. The pusher was described as a boy of about twenty years, five feet five inches tall, of ordinary build, who sold marijuana to anybody regardless of age. Acting on these reports, the unit organized a buy-bust operation for the morning of November 13, 1987. Patrolman Roberto Ruiz was designated team leader, with Pfc. Eleazar Lahom and Patrolmen Tomasito Corpuz and Jesus Saulog as members. Two ten-peso bills were marked with the initials of Patrolman Corpuz, and one was given to the confidential informant.

At about ten in the morning, the team, in civilian clothes, parked an owner-type jeep on Dinalupihan Street near Pampanga Street. Patrolman Corpuz and the informant approached the accused, who was seated by the gutter. The informant signaled, and the accused rose and walked with them toward a wooden house. The informant said he would get some, and the accused was told that the informant would buy ten pesos worth of marijuana and his companion another ten pesos worth. Twenty pesos would fetch ten handrolled marijuana cigarettes at two pesos per stick. The accused took the twenty pesos from Patrolman Corpuz, tucked it in his waist, went inside the house, and emerged shortly to hand over ten cigarette sticks of handrolled marijuana. Patrolman Corpuz took them and grabbed the accused, announcing that he was a policeman. Patrolman Ruiz rushed over, and the accused was overpowered. The informant ran away.

Patrolman Ruiz frisked the accused and recovered the marked ten-peso bills from his waist. He asked the accused to sign his name on the two bills, and the accused also placed his initials on each marijuana stick. The sticks were referred to the forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, Carina Javier, who found them positive for marijuana. The accused denied the charge. He claimed he was buying breakfast at a neighbor's stand when two men alighted from a jeep, asked if he was Carlito Linsangan, frisked him, and took him away. He suggested the charge was fabricated because he had earlier refused to let Patrolmen Corpuz and Ruiz board his tricycle. His barangay chairman certified to his good moral character. The trial court nonetheless convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged ill motive and inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Whether or not it was the informer, and not the accused, who handed the ten sticks of marijuana to Patrolman Corpuz.
• Whether or not the marked money was planted evidence.
• Whether or not the requirement that the accused initial the ten-peso bills violated his constitutional rights to counsel, to remain silent, and against self-incrimination during custodial investigation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Law, as amended, defines the crime charged. The information alleged that the accused, not being authorized by law, sold, delivered, gave away, or distributed prohibited drugs, namely ten handrolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes. This is the provision under which the trial court convicted him.

Section 4 of Republic Act 6425 punishes any person who shall sell, deliver, give away to another, distribute, or act as a broker in the sale or distribution of any prohibited drug.

Section 17 of Article Three of the Constitution protects a person under custodial investigation. The accused invoked it because he initialed the marked bills without the assistance of counsel.

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This guarantee is the anchor of the fourth issue, and the Court's ruling turns on what the accused was actually compelled to do.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is entitled to great respect unless clearly shown to be arbitrary, which the defense failed to do. The inconsistencies noted in the affidavit of arrest involved minor details that did not affect the over-all picture of the case. The alleged motive for fabrication was not credible. The Court said it could not imagine that a lowly tricycle driver would have the temerity to defy a pair of armed policemen by refusing them a ride in pursuit of a law violator.

On the second and third issues, the Court upheld the trial court's finding that the policemen arrested the accused while he was actually engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party. The trial court gave more credence to their categorical declarations than to the accused's denials. As law enforcers, they are presumed to have performed their official duties in a regular manner. The Court added that their task of apprehending persons engaged in the deadly drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly so.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the accused was not denied due process. Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the ten-peso bills found in his waist, his right against self-incrimination was not violated, because possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime. The subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana cigarettes. His conviction was not based on the presence of his initials on the bills, but on the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually selling marijuana. The Court cited the principle that the right against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion, not to the taking of physical evidence.

Doctrine

First, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are binding on appeal absent a clear showing of arbitrariness. Second, police officers are presumed to have performed their official duties in a regular manner, and this presumption supports the testimony of the arresting team in a buy-bust operation. Third, the right against self-incrimination protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself, but it does not extend to the requirement that he initial or sign physical evidence, such as marked money, because possession of that money is not itself a crime and the act is not testimonial in nature. Fourth, a conviction for drug pushing may rest on the credible testimony of the arresting officers that they caught the accused in the act of selling, even without the accused's initials on the marked bills.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the judgment of conviction, modifying only the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the right against self-incrimination bars testimonial compulsion, not the initialing of marked money, which is physical evidence. Examiners like to use this case to test the boundaries of custodial investigation rights and the presumption of regularity in buy-bust operations.